Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking. Login or Take a Tour!
Here's just one example, anybody else want to add?
Scientists, aware of this orientation, tend to submit only grants aimed at elucidating the biochemistry.
This is so true in so many fields of research. The NIH only considers certain projects worthy, so that's what researchers are going to study (because if you don't get a grant in X number of years, you're fired at pretty much any institution). It hurts everyone.
–
Not necessarily; but a positive outcome might be insignificant to the general public (many chemotherapies that "extend" life do so for days) and I believe they should help more than harm, but that's not true, as so many drugs have been placed in the public market just to be withdrawn later secondary to adverse effects. And, most trials are funded by drug companies and drugs are almost never compared with other drugs in the same class. These are just a few of the problems.
–
Looked it up, since I was curious, and surprisingly, the US federal government doesn't actually oversee the clinical trials, though the FDA does audit them to make sure they are correctly following procedure. They at least are run by independent organizations from the pharmaceutical companies. Still, I'd expected the process to be a bit...better than that.
–